In an interview to ET, father and son ( Farhan Akhtar) debated over what two successful creative professionals often engage in: a friendly banter about art and the mart. Always finding a common thread of humour, even as they agree to disagree.

Is cinema dictated by finance today?

Farhan Akhtar: I don't agree. Of course, there are people in the industry with the mindset that my weekend has to be the best weekend ever. But balancing creativity and commerce is a very individual phenomenon.

The urge to direct a film has to come from a personal motivation. But when you have an investor, you have to be responsible. The minimum responsibility is to ensure the person does not lose the money he has invested.

Javed Akhtar: The golden era has never been the present one. Aristotle had written years ago that the younger generation has lost its values. So this is an old complaint. The fact is, at any given time, money has always been at the centre of this industry — more so, in a vocation that is capital intensive.

Yet, there is no single formula, or everyone would be making the same kind of cinema. To say it's a cold blooded, one-way street of just money is not true. Having said that, there will be compromises, but then one compromises everywhere — with one's wife, colleagues, friends. It is not a four-letter word. But if you are spending crores of rupees belonging to someone else, you have to responsible!

How has the entry of structured finance changed things apart from shedding the grey status of the industry?

Farhan Akhtar: Ten years ago, distributors came for what we called 'trial shows' to see the film they had bought, but just before its release. Today, they read a script and invest in your story. They don't sit on a script session, but they do read it. Earlier if Aamir was in a film, we would find someone to distribute it just on pure star strength. But today, even if Aamir is there in a film, the distributor wants to know the story. If he likes the story, he would back it.

Javed Akhtar: I know they ask for a script because they want to be seen as educated. But Farhan, name two films that were not viable or saleable... and they backed the film because of the script?

Javed Akhtar: Yes and no Farhan, you cannot say that. Those films came with a certain package which was from Excel where you've had huge films too.

Farhan Akhtar: Of course not. Now we are doing Don 2 and Talaash (Aamir's film) with them. Earlier it was not so.

Javed Akhtar: I believe it is ultimately the cast or your reputation which is the deciding factor. You and Ritiesh have made a reputation and some successful films. But if a new director comes up with the best script ever, will he get the chance to make the film? I don't think so.

Farhan Akhtar: No Pa, they will make the film in a logical budget, like UTV Spotboy does with so many of their films, Reliance Entertainment does it with a lot of regional films today.

But we need to figure out whether the budget is commensurate with the script's requirement. They read the script and then decide whether they will back the film or not.

How important was finance or money to the producers in the 60s and 70s as compared to today?

Javed Akhtar: No, money was always a necessary evil at all times. At the same time, different people make different kinds of cinema. People were making all kinds of films. Some of them also followed only trends.

The important thing to remember here is we always forget the kachraa (films) and remember the hit ones. And you feel, wow! What an era it was! If this was not the golden period, which one was?

Javed Akhtar: Society affects cinema, its language, as well as content. In the 40s, 50s and 60s, the middle class had not come from industrialisation. There was only one way to be middle class – that was education. The middle class was the extended family of the landed gentry.

Which means, it was mandatory for you to be educated. But when industrialisation came, there came many ancillaries. So you had a new middle class: they were not from the villages and not necessarily educated. So you see a dip in aesthetics and crudity everywhere... in films, songs and politics. The quality was more grouse. But these people could afford to give a good education to their children.

And with better life conditions, develop better aesthetics. Which is why in the 90s and late 90s, you could see cinema getting more sophisticated. Although I still believe that cinema has yet to achieve that intellectual depth that cinema of the 50s and 60s had. We have achieved skin-deep sophistication, depth needs to seep in. But it's a matter of one more generation — in cinema, a generation is 10 years.